This post has been edited by Acid_RuleZz: May 24 2016, 10:59 AM

Subscribe!



This post has been edited by kizwan: Sep 8 2015, 07:37 PM

Yay for new thread!

Was about to create one.

3rd dipp! greeting to all ! first AMD R9 Fury X owner x

I'd say its a tad disappointing that its not able to beat 980ti @ 1440p. With the improvement with respect to the R9 290X, thats huge. But as a competitor to big maxwell, nope. Not helped by gameworks introduction, saving face really. Hope for newer drivers, not betas, couldnt come faster.

nvidia has licked this round. We'll see what happens @ 14/16nm.

If anything at all, this card will be paving way for the new HBM, kudos to AMD for that. Lets see if there will be an OC version of it and how far the AIB partners push it.

No wonder Lisa Su said that the dual GPU Fury is going to be the fastest card ever. With that said, I'm looking forward for Nano now.

This post has been edited by area61: Jun 24 2015, 10:49 PM

AMD what a disappointment!!!!!!!!!!!!

hmhmm troll.. AMD R9 Fury X still Early stage.. Driver not Fully optimize...

HardwareCannucks Give -DamGood - Dam Innovative Awards-



Here Crossfire AMD R9 Fury X vs Titan X SLI



Lick ? haha sure watever..

This post has been edited by Unseen83: Jun 24 2015, 11:35 PM

Not really a disappointment - just it doesn't really give the wow factor.

It's a very good and competitive card, but does it really gives the knockout punch? Not quite.

Still, this card holds a lot of potential in the future.

Licked?

BTW, Fury X is going to be ref only, just like the Titan X.

Still, I want to see how AMD is going to compete with Intel in the CPU front. Will be quite interesting to see how Zen fares against Broadwell/Skylake...

Come on come on,release the Nano.

What's the estimated price of the nano when it reach here?

USD449? *

*Pricing is completely conjured up from my mind - there is no credibility to the pricing.

This post has been edited by chocobo7779: Jun 24 2015, 11:01 PM

Do anyone Know who else bought R9 Fury X ? wonder who bought 3 Fury X in malaysia..

Nano should be around after summer, I'm guessing around August.

I'm guessing it might be similarly priced to the R9 390X

No brand loyalty here. Been in the green camp since Riva TNT day. I even downgraded from i7 4790K / GTX 970 to A10-7850K with iGPU for my primary desktop early this year just to try out new technologies by AMD. Plus I only do gaming occasionally. Possibly mesmerized by the potential and innovation even though the result is not quite there.

Although I think most people that can afford high-end gears won't pay too much attention to price to performance ratio anyway. They tend to spend money on the most current, hottest toy on the market simply because they can afford to.

If priced similarly to the 390X,then the 390X will get price cut i guess.Around RM15xx-16xx should be a good price for it,with the Nano taking over RM18xx-20xx.

The backplate was for decoration. No pads


N hmm marketing ad from amd
Was this meant for tx??

it sure is still hunting, haven jumpa kill yet coz pisau x cukup tajam lagi

Anandtech benches


Interesting fury x hans the sane issue as 285. Using mantle performance drop in bf4.


Hmm users in malaysia. Try not to let that gpu temp hit 70. Ure water temp will hit 60 which is the max for most pumps.

Btw alot of stuff quoting from ocn

This post has been edited by cstkl1: Jun 24 2015, 11:30 PM

Well we knew this was gonna be made

wouldnt there be nothing for the backplate to dissipate heat from?

most of the time backplate has thermal pads for the RAM modules IINM

AMD Zen will be another hype again...
But, this time, like usual, don't give high-hope to it.

Hopefully Zen will not be a disappointment - if it's a disappointment then Intel will have absolutely no incentive to improve their chips...

I miss the days where AMD and Intel were actively competing each other for better products - still remember where you can get massive improvements in performance for each leap in generation?

If AMD went down under and we get an Intel/nVidia monopoly things are not going to bode well, especially for the PC gaming community.

This time the problem aren't RAM module, but the VRM.
http://www.overclock.net/t/1561860/various...0#post_24083978

The cooler didn't cool the VRMs?

No idea, but to be fair may be isolated case or the particularly guy didn't reassemble them back well enough.
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/937-6/rade...erclocking.html

Also I reckon such high temperature will only occur on stress test with power virus.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ra...y-x,4196-8.html

Let's wait and see if there's any further story on that.

This post has been edited by Human10: Jun 25 2015, 01:37 AM

yeah but for Fury X, wouldnt the VRAM module be on the die itself? i mean, non HBM cards have their VRAM module soldered on back of PCB, which is why the backplate helps

but theres no back VRAM module from the pictures ive seen, so backplate isnt necessary

OCN server crashed.

Stick some thermal padding at the high heat zone at the back and in contact with backplate (metal?) will help a little than none I think?

Putting a backplate on it without padding might actually entrap a layer of air in between and worsen the cooling of the VRM?
https://cms-images.idgesg.net/images/articl...592012-orig.jpg

So its either put it with thermal pad or else better remove it.

This post has been edited by Human10: Jun 25 2015, 02:06 AM

well they are metal after all, might be heat conductive

I don't think they dare to directly in contact the metal plate with the PCB, later short circuit with the components.

If not in contact, there gonna be air gaps in between, and we all know how worse air is as a heat conductor. Worse it is not perforated.
http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/chaostheo...strony_down.jpg

Better remove it or add non-conductive thermal pad to it.

This post has been edited by Human10: Jun 25 2015, 02:13 AM

If the card is cool i dont see the issue of needing thermal pads or anything being stuck to the backplate..

Card hardly goes above 50 degrees. Pretty sure AMD that has the expertise to design such a complex chip would know whether or not to add thermal pads to the back plate

The chip itself is dead cool, the issue now is the VRM aren't (check my post 24th). Kind of remind me on the 290 + kraken g10 saga last time.

But again, we no idea if that is isolated case, user tampering or only occur under extreme stress test with power virus, so let's wait and see how the story develop.

This post has been edited by Human10: Jun 25 2015, 04:45 AM

Zen is not hyped. It's a brand new CPU architecture. The fanboys is strong in this one, this is AMD Radeon discussion not AMD CPU discussion.


@S4PH On the subject, I already told in previous thread that the performance won't be that good, and I was right. Just increasing the stream processor count and not increasing the front end like geometry engine, ACE it not a good idea. AMD doesn't learn from nvidia at all.

even though the VRMs already cool without the thermal pad, but im pretty sure with thermal pads, the temp will be cooler and better.. its cheap and simple, quite disappointing AMD did not put the thermal pads themselves..

I don't think AMD failed to deliver, they actually brave enough to invest on HBM and get it into market first. That alone is a credit. Just like they did with GDDR5. Only this time their involvement in HBM is more direct.

Despite alot of problem in manufacturing the chip, they manage to at least match the 980Ti performance, and the best part their pricing is still lower than 980Ti.

Maybe our expectation is too high on AMD for this card to beat the Titan X. For sure nvidia Pascal is more mature product when it is release, but AMD will have the upper hand in terms of experience and familiarities with HBM technology.

lol what how come its tottaly different from what amd benchmark themselves



I'm so glad I followed your rant about the card and be skeptic about it . My next card going to be 980 ti for sure
To thought that watercooling would actually benefit fury x in terms of overclocking but mere 5% increase

Now its up to the Fury Pro(non-X) to try and deliver(although I don't think they can catch up to the FuryX's level). But it is interesting to know what the AiB partners can conjure up with.

Although the Fury X seems like a miss and hit, I do think as the driver comes into a more mature state, the performance will stabilise. After all, there are too much variance between review sites to be 100% conclusive.

Currently having very bad experience with Sapphire R9 3xx series.

The screen just flickers away, often crash and unable to do anything. NOTE : That's on the same system that's able to run GTX 980 Ti and R9 295X2.

I got fed up, did a fresh installation on different SSD, change mobo, RAM, processor, PSU, SATA cables whatever you can think off. Still the same thing.

Windows is 8.1 of course, driver is 15.6 as on the site. Nope, didn't work. 15.5, 15.4, 14.12 also doesn't work.

Now I'm just waiting for PowerColor units to come in and see if it's the brand issue or the Radeon chip itself.

And so far I have problem with R9 390X and R9 390 Nitro from Sapphire. Fury? Well, I haven't plug it in.

There's another reviewer in youtube that faced even worse problem than your 390x...his review unit can't display anything at all...

I can view BIOS / POST.
I can view Windows load.
The most I can reach is DESKTOP.
In some cases, the DESKTOP then after a while - CRASH.

It was miraculous that I managed to get some benchies done but even during that session I couldn't get it to go 4K no matter what.

Now I'm trying to get to benchies again, some can't do. Ridiculous so far.

It just doesn't make sense, a rig that can run GTX 980 Ti and R9 295X2 and never had any problem.

Changed PSU, even now my last ditch effort - raise the wattage to 850W but to no avail.

OK now I go try Fury X.

Epic fail review unit. You'd think AMD would test these things before sending it out to the media eh?

I'd have a look at the mobo and then run power diagnostics via a riser card and current clamps.

Not looking good either way.

No, this is not from AMD. It's retail units of Sapphire's R9 390X and R9 390 Nitro.

As for the Fury X, I am installing the drivers now and keeping my fingers crossed.

I went from Gigabyte Z97X-Gaming 3 and ASRock Z97 Extreme 4.
I went from Core i5 to Core i3 (because the i5 on Gigabyte board is with AIO cooler, troublesome to remove just to troubleshoot)
I went from FSP Aurum S 700W to Cooler Master V700 to Cooler Master V850

Arrghhhhh..................

Really really really hoping the Fury X would be working fine.

Wahhh I love the Fury X!!! Compact and silent, ok well slight noise from the pump.

The unit runs cooling and it's very unlike the 295X2.

Use drivers 15.15 instead, that's for the 300 series IINM

EDIT: AMD sites said 15.6 is for 200 series and below only use this:
http://support.amd.com/en-us/kb-articles/P...300-Series.aspx

This post has been edited by terradrive: Jun 25 2015, 09:50 AM

Using 15.15 now for the Fury X.

Once done I'll go back to the R9 390X / R9 390 Nitro again. I did install from the CD provided but to no avail.

Will see how it goes. Benching Fury X now. Preliminary deduction - performance similar to the GTX 980. Should be around R9 390X performance as seen on the many articles.

If that's the case then there's a chance that the Nano is cheaper than 390x?

Pretty much yes. I'm guessing the Nano performed around 290 ish. With the benefit of form factor and power consumption.

Yeah, I agree. BTW, I'm from the beginning did feels very skeptical that Fury X can beat Titan X because the're using new tech.

You probably missed that overclock was with stock voltage. Once MSI AB & alike give use voltage control, we'll see how high Fury X can go.

Well, the Fury X will be only reference though. No matter which vendor, they will have similar performance. That's why I am more interested in Fury Pro...the AiB partners can go crazy with the Fury. And like TTL said at the end of his Fury X review, this is what most enthusiast will want to wait for.

I can't recall if there is any difference in spec between those 2, but if there's no real difference, there's no stopping for them to slap in a hybrid cooling solution.

EDIT: Ok, I just realised that the Fury Pro will only have 3584 SP which is lower that Fury X's 4096..Just have to wait and see how much of a difference will that make.

This post has been edited by faidz85: Jun 25 2015, 10:51 AM

Issit the card on dual bios? Check whether the bios switch is properly switched? Happen to my 780 lightning once

You know, Dual-BIOS shouldn't be giving hiccups like that. Anyway I tested both, not a first time Sapphire card user.

Is ure windows a uefi install?

Oh and please, forget about Fury beating Titan X.

Price is around RM 3k. Performance varies from anywhere from trailing a GTX 980 to outperforming a GTX 980 Ti.

4GB RAM and HBM factor.

cool, happened to see similarity with my previous problem, almost wanna cry back then

Care to check whether GPU usage is 99%?

Also can you check if memory overclock is available with latest prepackaged 15.15 driver?

feel underpower... hm maybe i should stick to Crossfire R9 290X TriX/Vapor... it is silent AMD Fury X(should be call Fluffy X)



sorry i'm noob in this.. later after breaking fast i try again..

Try on some games u have.

wtf even my single 970 can get 11k score

I tot at least gonna hit 15-16k

Linus Fury X was DOA that shows how much problem it will have and never heard that review sample DOA first time i have heard that.

later..

my gpu clock is 1050mhz/mem 500mhz.. What was your GPU clock/mem ?

Driver from CD or download? Did u use DDU?
That look like my 290x score at 1150mhz.

1578/1800 lol

please bro give me a good word and I shall buy this card

eh driver 15.15 hm i did not do DDU.. no time la ni ppun i gtg..

here.. i Overclock it 1050mhz to 1104mhz



and i cannot reccomend anything yet.. ask Goldfinger he know more.. i just do this for fun need time to plan on better clock OH temp is all under 50C

so what we look at again Graphic score or just the SCORE.. ? ? hmm oh i forgot to oc my Cpu.. ehh but later.. adios . sorry if this offended anyone..

ubi kentang review should be up soon.
coz bro unseen83 is a nub in benchmarking (no offend)

lol nvm my itchy hand cannot tahan anb bought this instead

Why not custom models that can boost alot straight from the box?

I'm also getting lower score lol T_T

worst than my 970sli but then again this is just synthetic benchmark



asked for fury x but non of the shop in penang got selling

this is then only 980ti i can find in penang lol

980ti is like that de, you need to overclock to match the speed of 970 sli.

Later try overclock and tell us how loud the cooler is haha

He dropped it. Saw it in video when he visit his new office with Luke.

Running at what clocks? What is your graphics score?

This post has been edited by kizwan: Jun 25 2015, 07:36 PM

for 970 ?

1587/118

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/7439068

I think my post kinda disrespect amd thread but where have the new fury x owner gone to ???

Enjoying the card is it

This post has been edited by shikimori: Jun 25 2015, 07:52 PM

Disrespect? No la. Haha.

This post has been edited by kizwan: Jun 25 2015, 07:59 PM

you, sir, made the right choice

now think of how 2 get 2 or 3 pieces 4 SLI setup

This post has been edited by skylinelover: Jun 25 2015, 08:25 PM

linus accidently drop their fury x according to their vessel video.

So theres that.

i can't Overclock higher 1125Mhz/10+%vcore (well i can go up higher but Crash when running 3Dmark/Heaven) Vcore 10%-50% eh.. lost against GTX 980 Ti.. for now until driver improve... i hope lolx

Stable OC core for my Fluffy is 1,125Mhz with Vcore 10+%

This post has been edited by Unseen83: Jun 25 2015, 09:14 PM

now my Rig no more Turbo sound xx

A bit scared kena marah dengan taiko post nvidia crap on amd thread . Really tempted purchasing fury even want to go for trip to kl
screw postage

I think I wanna go for rog swift instead but now waiting ipmart to refund my xb280hk monitor purchase that they promised to deliver by this week ended up delaying again .
Seriously I ordered like on 3rd of june , they took me as a joke and now I want my money back only to be told refund takes 10-12 working days
my god what bank do they even use . Even cheque cleared in just 3-4 working days

enough of my rant . But bro Unseen damn you reallly hardcore amd fan , I dont really have allegiance to me performance comes first .
But 980 ti at full speed does sound like a hair dryer XD

At least to compensate the lack of firepower of fury x the less noise is a brownie points

Don't worry about it. I actually pro multi-gpu. Rather than buying fury, why don't you buy another 980 ti for SLI? What monitor you have right now?

Weird wide screen ultrasharp u2913wm . Really hype about that 4k gsync monitor but who would have known i got fark at the back . Never again im going to buy from that site

i'm AMD Hardcore Fan... hope AMD MY here that... so i can get my free game.. or free freesync lcd... no worried AMD Hardcore Fan do not go on personal Attack.. so all is good.. well i wish my RM2.8K gpu could beat gtx 980 ti/titan X but eh... wait better driver.. (soon)

when you think ubi emas gonna fin his benchmark... ?? ? i'm curious... and hoping he do better than me as i think Fury X is limited by 1,125Mhz...

Are you still selling your R9 290X?

970 SLI would be faster than any single card 980.

They mean 980TI, which performance should hover about the range of 970SLI.

If 980TI is lucky enough for a OC to 1.5k range, it can definitely gap in and win in the situation which require more than 3.5GB VRAM.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Gigabyt..._Gaming/33.html


This post has been edited by Human10: Jun 25 2015, 11:34 PM

To those with custom loop, Fury X in single slot mode.
http://www.techpowerup.com/213800/ek-water...ot-capable.html

I'm referring to both the 980 and 980 Ti.

The 980 Ti has speed improvements but it's not suprising that it's behind 970 SLI.

Very few article has such comparison, check out this one http://www.pcgamer.com/nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-ti-review/

The 970 SLI may lose out when games go beyond the 4GB RAM limitation.

I have the 980 and 980 Ti with me, the Ti does shine when game settings take up a lot of VRAM.

I believe you also need a highly optimized SLI profile for 970 SLI to shine (provided the VRAM hadn't hit the limitation).
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/..._970_SLI/5.html


The resolution a little off for the one of 980TI OC I posted above (1600p vs 1440p), so we use a roughly 10% conversion factor.

If in 1440p reso, it is expected to have 130+ FPS, which is not exactly better than 980TI, and the SLI profile is already among the best (performance scaling of 2 cards almost reaching 200%). For most other game, SLI rarely able to scale this high (it averaged at bout 160% performance to single card), 980TI OC definitely can be winner there.

p/s: Anyone find this thread is getting a little too "green"...

This post has been edited by Human10: Jun 26 2015, 12:36 AM